“IT WAS AS if a storm had targeted us.” On the afternoon of December 15, an Israeli airstrike slammed into the Farhana school in Khan Younis where Al Jazeera Gaza bureau chief Wael al-Dahdouh and his cameraman, Samer Abu Daqqa, had just wrapped up filming the aftermath of an earlier bombardment in the area.

Dahdouh was thrown to the ground. “I lost balance to the point of faintly losing consciousness until I regained my strength,” he told The Intercept. “I tried to get up in any way because I was sure that another missile would target us — from our experience that’s what usually happens.” Dahdouh realized he was bleeding profusely from the arm and that if he didn’t get medical attention, he would die. He had also temporarily lost much of his hearing from the blast. He looked over and saw the three Civil Defense workers who had been accompanying the two journalists had been killed.

“In those milliseconds I thought I couldn’t offer him anything. I couldn’t. And he couldn’t move, he couldn’t get up.” Then, he saw Abu Daqqa lying on the ground some distance away. “He was trying to get up and it seemed like he was screaming,” Dahdouh said. “In those milliseconds I thought I couldn’t offer him anything. I couldn’t. And he couldn’t move, he couldn’t get up. I decided to take advantage of the remaining glimmer of hope, which was to try to go towards the ambulance.”

Dahdouh somehow managed to make his way across the rubble to an ambulance hundreds of meters away and was evacuated to a nearby hospital. But Abu Daqqa, wounded in the lower part of his body, could not walk to the ambulance and was left lying on the ground. Hours went by, but emergency workers were unable to reach him without approval from the Israeli military. As his life slipped away, Al Jazeera posted a live counter on its broadcast showing the number of hours and minutes since Abu Daqqa had been wounded. When emergency crews were finally able to reach Abu Daqqa over five hours later, he was dead.

  • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2110 months ago

    It means opposing israel’s policy of making the land of Palestine a Jewish ethno state. It’s basically like opposing the modern day Nazis.

    For example on Lemmy, on /news the mods will ban any website that is denoted as “anti-Zionistic” because they deem any website that opposes israel as untrustworthy.

    • Keith
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Lemmy? Are you sure? I’ve seen zero pro-Zionists (in the most used sense of the term, regarding Israel’s current actions and etc.) on Lemmy who aren’t trolls.

      • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I posted a few articles on Lemmy debunking the made up rape allegations by the New York Times which subsequently got removed because MBFC describe them as an “anti-zionist outlet”.

        When asking what in the article was false (because it was full of links to sources) they refused to respond. They forgot however that /news does not even have any rules about MBFC in the sidebar. /worldnews also has some Zionist mods but it’s not nearly as bad.

        As for MBFC, MBFC in itself seems to promote only outlets which have now been proven to be ran by Zionists which all reported the 40 beheaded babies lie as fact, and continue to post about lies such as the raped women (which has now been completely debunked)

        Example of these pro-Zionist outlets are:

        The Washington Post

        CNN

        New York Times (and this )

        The Times of israel (lol)

          • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            !news@lemmy.world

            Also interesting is that /worldnews (this one) is removing the mod I spoke to about the MBFC requirement

            MightBe has been removed as mod from both World News and Politics.

            I also unpinned and removed their rule change posts.

            I discussed that articles with sufficient sourcing and evidence should be allowed no matter their MBFC rating, since MBFC has clear bias to sites such as The Grayzone for example. The irony of MBFC Analysis is deep:

            Analysis / Bias:

            The Grayzone produces in-depth journalism from a far-left perspective such as this The US is turning oil-rich Nigeria into a proxy for its Africa wars. All stories reviewed were properly sourced from mostly credible media and information sources.

            But their rating score is:

            MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

            Furthermore they use foreignpolicy .com to debunk them which doesn’t even try to hide their Zionism:

            Germany Needs to Step Up on Israel-Palestine

            And of course blaming Egypt for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza instead of israel.

            Guess what FP’s rating is? MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

            • CommunityLinkFixerBotB
              link
              English
              210 months ago

              Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !news@lemmy.world

      • @TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        310 months ago

        I’ve been banned from political memes and world news for antisemitism, just for declaring Gaza a genocide.